Dinesh Kumar Pradhan vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The instant writ application has been preferred for the following reliefs in the writ petition:-

The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that he was appointed on 17.05.1991 on the post of Clerk in the Education Department (now known as School Education and Literacy Department), Government of Jharkhand. He retired on 31.05.2021 as such from the office of the District Superintendent of Education, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. He completed 12 years of service on 17.05.2003 and 20 years of service on 17.05.2011.

The 1^st ACP was granted to the petitioner in the scale of 4500-7000 on completion of 12 years. Similarly, the 2^nd MACP was granted to the petitioner in the scale of 5000-8000 on completion of 20 years of service with effect from 17.05.2011.

As per the petitioner, he was entitled for grant of 1^st ACP in the scale of 5000-8000 with effect from 17.05.2003 and 2^nd MACP in the scale of 5500-9000 (unrevised) and PB-II, 9300-34800 with Grade Pay (GP) 4600 (revised) with effect from 17.05.2011.

When the request of the petitioner was not acceded to, the petitioner along with others filed writ petition, which was registered as W.P.(S) No.5123 of 2014. The petitioner was arrayed as Petitioner No.18 in the said writ petition. This writ petition was disposed of on 13.11.2017 with observation that since the petitioners have pleaded that their case are similar to Shri Shridhar Jha, Shri Sona Ram Deogham and Shri Awadhesh Kishor who enjoyed the benefits of 1^st ACP in the scale of 5000-8000 and 2^nd in the scale of 5500-9000 and there was a direction to the State to file reply thereto but no reply was filed, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to consider all such aspects and take a decision. It was further observed that such decision must be taken within 6 weeks and if the petitioners are found entitled, the benefits be extended within 4 weeks thereafter.

Against the said order, L.P.A. No.153 of 2018 was filed by the State of Jharkhand. However, in the meantime the Regional Deputy Director of Education (RDDE), Kolhan Division, Chaibasa passed Office Order extending the benefits by Memo No.45 dated 31.01.2020 in which the name of this petitioner appears at Sl. No.18. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal, being L.P.A No.153 of 2018 was dismissed as not pressed on 03.12.2020.

At this stage, it is necessary to point out that the earlier order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education was made subject to the result of the Letters Patent Appeal, but after the disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal, the Office Order No.561 dated 24.07.2023 was also issued. It was stated in the said order that in the light of the order passed in L.P.A. No.153 of 2018 the direction for payment is being made.

In view of the fact that the competent authority directed for extending the benefits, the petitioner approached the District Superintendent of Education for payment of benefits accrued to the petitioner, as the District Superintendent of Education, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa was the Drawing and Disbursing Officer. The District Superintendent of Education was simply required to follow and pay the benefits to the petitioner, but instead, he passed the impugned order contained in Memo No.2240 dated 20.12.2024 rejecting the claim of the petitioner and hence the writ petition has been filed challenging the same before this Court.

A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no.2 who is none else but the Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand.

The affidavit is sworn by the Director, Secondary Education. Stand has been taken in the counter affidavit, inter alia, that the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Kolhan Division, Chaibasa has already taken a decision by Memo No.63 dated 30.01.2019 and Memo No.45 dated 31.01.2020 to pay the benefits to the petitioner in the light of the order passed in W.P.(s) No.5123 of 2014 and other analogues case.

Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is neither sustainable in law nor on facts. He refers paragraph no.20 of the writ petition wherein altogether 9 grounds have been taken to challenge the impugned order but the same has not been replied at all in the counter affidavit. He submits further that on one hand paragraph no.20 of the writ petition has not been replied to and on the other hand the Director, who is the deponent of counter affidavit filed by Respondent, admits in paragraph no.9 that the Regional Deputy Director of Education has already taken a decision to extend the benefits to the petitioner in the light of order passed in W.P.(s) No.5123 of 2014. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of the law.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that Regional Deputy Director of Education, Kolhan is the appointing authority of the Class-III employee, like the petitioner, who was posted and retired as a Clerk. District Superintendent of Education has no power and jurisdiction to decide the claim of the petitioner. Once the Higher Officer, who is competent to take a decision, has already taken a decision, the District Superintendent of Education has no business to pass the impugned order contrary to the decision taken by the Regional Deputy Director of Education. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is fit to be set aside by extending the benefits to the petitioner.

On the other hand, Mr. Mithilesh Singh, appears for the respondents-State of Jharkhand and submits that the order impugned is passed by District Superintendent of Education. He submits that in the light of the order passed by this Court in earlier round of litigation, the Regional Deputy Director of Education passed orders but thereafter the District Superintendent of Education has passed impugned order. He defends the order impugned.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that once the writ petition was disposed of by this Court in earlier round of litigation and the appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed as not pressed, the benefits accrued to the petitioner must be extended to him.

Moreover, after the order passed by this Court contained in Annexure-1, the high-ranking Officer, Regional Deputy Director of Education (RDDE) has already passed orders on 30.01.2019, 31.01.2020 and 24.07.2023 extending the required benefits to the petitioner. Once the high-ranking Officer has passed the orders, the District Superintendent of Education was required to follow the same and pay the benefits as he is the Drawing and Disbursing Officer. Instead, he has passed the impugned order without considering that the high-ranking Officer (the RDDE), had already decided the claim of the petitioner along with others.

Moreover, from perusal of the counter affidavit and the paragraph no.9 thereof, in particular, it appears that the State already admits that the Regional Deputy Director of Education (now known as Regional Joint Director of Education) has already passed orders in Memo No.63 dated 30.01.2019 and Memo No.45 dated 31.01.2020. Once this position is accepted, the District Superintendent of Education has no cause of action to pass the impugned order.

In the light of the above facts, the impugned order contained in Memo No.2240 dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure-8 of the writ petition), is hereby, quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to pay benefits of 1^st ACP in the scale of 5000-8000 and 2^nd MACP in the scale of 5500-9000 (PB-II, 9300-34800 with Grade Pay of 4600) to the petitioner with effect from 17.05.2003 and 17.05.2011 respectively.

The benefits must be extended to the petitioner within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.